|
Walter & Group...
[GH] Before going into the specific tasks, we have some general comments on the test itself.
>From Gary Eaton :
Gordy,
I am a relatively recent MCI (2008). If I were to select the single thing that would clarify the expectations, it would be a diagram of the expected line layout with diagrams of acceptable range of variance and diagrams for absolute failure. For overhead evaluations, loop shape and size, etc, could be depicted. I believe it would take less than a day to generate such drawings or photos for the applicable tasks.Of course it might take the CBOG years to agree and tweak them and decide who gets to see them and . . .
As far as video goes, I suspect Carl McNeil's new DVD "Casts That Catch Fish", coupled with Phil Gay's "Presentation Casts for Trout - part two" would provide two-thirds of the video work. I have only seen excerpts of Carl & Jeanne's work, but it looks very good as was his casting in "Once in a Blue Moon" about the NZ mouse hatch.
At the request of the web master, I have been writing about the examinations and preparation on the FFF Southern council blog. There are other training snippets and the occasional rant. So far, I have received positive feedback. The topic is "Fly Casting" at http://forums.southerncouncilfff.org/forumdisplay.php?44-Fly-Casting
On my quest, I found that MCI's that had taken the test more than five years earlier had no idea of exactly what was expected from the BOG for most of the current exam. I also sought out prep lessons for the MCI from members of the CBOG and was frustrated to find the wide divergence of expectations on the exam, from their perspectives. Again, line layout diagrams would have resolved some of these conflicts. Once in a while I run into an examiner who adds personal expectations beyond what I learned at the MCI examiners workshop in Loveland in 2009. I find it very hard to feel good about examining candidates when the exam team keeps moving the goal posts. My SOCO forums posts reflect passing on advice to minimize such occurrences by not examining at conclaves.
My conclave examination experience reinforces the variance of and, dominance by, certain Board Governors by region. Generally, the more entrenched, the more comfortable they are examining outside the specifications or using pet methods of examining that fellow governors, when questioned about the methods, find disturbing.
The question I most often field confidentially revolves around where to get a fair MCI examination, Generally, it is not at conclaves or other gatherings. I have opinions as to why this is so. I will reserve those. The great task for the CBOG to deliver credibility is to create equivalent testing experiences.
In professional examinations, I pay a fee to sit at a secure computer to answer the exact same questions as everyone else taking the exam all over the world on the same day. Any violations of test security ends licensure and leads to criminal and civil prosecution for violating copyright laws. Certainly the MCI "oral"portion deserves this level of consistency. Taking it to the extreme, video skills examination for review of appeals and evaluation of instructors seems a bit futuristic, yet plausible.
Being involved in these professional exams and re-certifications based upon a vast library of changing information is humbling and confidence-building simultaneously. I believe that a 200-question MCI test could be generated from a few thousand submitted and well-crafted exam questions. A new test could be generated each year. Key would be securing the complete question pool from general CBOG access. Such an effort would initially seem monumental and would about double the cost of MCI examinations. This approach would also
1) free MCI examiners for just the performance portion
2) assure consistency
3) provide objective criteria for knowledge evaluation
4) seal security.
All of these are increasingly needed. The question pool already exists in the study buddies and working groups that shaped the process to this point. Soliciting potential exam questions from successful candidates assures an invigorating flow of fresh looks.The exam companies extract a significant fee for oversight of the process, but the final product exceeds anything seen so far in the CICP.
The 2010 posting on the FFF website of several CCI written questions and answers as well as the wide distribution of the CCI paper test, has undermined the security of this exam to nil. A similar underground of pet questions of certain MCI examiners seems to also exist, as I discovered after I completed my testing. The sum of my experiences informs some of my forum posts with care to not undermine the published testing process. I find the ethics of some study processes to be lowly and reports to the authorities cause no apparent sanction.
The FFF CBOG certainly is well-intentioned. Is it time to invest in the credible professionalization of the process?
Alternative Instructor certifications have begun to arise and are likely to spread like invasive species in clean water. It seems the only criteria are to 1) pay the fee 2) befriend the sole examiner and 3) buy the certificate. For the FFF CICP to rise above these processes, the clarification, standardization and professionalization of the MCI must move in the direction I suggest. Legitimacy demands vigilant standards, next year is too late.
Gary Eaton
|